On December 1, 1989, carrier contracted out the removal and replacement of a wooden door in a brick building in Madison Yard. Prior to doing so, it gave notice to the Sheet Metal Workers. The Organization argues that the work in question was routine B&B maintenance work and that Carrier erred in failing to give it proper notice of its intent to subcontract. In support of its position, it points to a Letter of Understanding between the organization and Sheet Metal Workers, dated August 1, 1982, in which it was agreed that, henceforth, in return for allowing pipe fitters to drive B&B Truck B58, B&B forces would be responsible for the maintenance on sheet metal and all metal buildings--with the exception of steel windows and doors in sheet metal and/or all metal buildings. As noted by the Organization in its submission, it recognized the latter to be the work of Sheet Metal Workers.
The organization argues in effect that since only steel doors and windows in sheet metal or metal buildings were mentioned in this Agreement, one must assume that maintenance work in conjunction with steel doors and windows in nonsheet metal or nonsteel buildings accrues to B&B forces. This Board does not accept that logic. It is far more logical to assume that in exempting steel doors and steel windows even in metal structures, the Sheet Metal Workers were steadfastly averring that' this was their work in general. (And that in fact is that Organization's position as a third party to this dispute.) The presence of Third Division Award 14419, dated May 12, 1966, involving the same parties, supports this conclusion. The Board in that instance recognized that there had been a past history of assigning work on fire doors to Sheet Metal Workers.
The Board finds no violation of the Agreement. Carrier raised a procedural question about the timeliness of the Organization's appeal, but the Board sees no basis for concluding that a lapse occurred.